CloseInvestor wrote: Why wouldn't Leronlimab be a

CloseInvestor wrote:
Why wouldn't Leronlimab be an *almost* absolute solution in case of full approval?” Simply because leronlimab is not an absolute solution. There’s a zero percent chance of mortality in the S/C trial control arm being reduced to zero. Like many have posted, the reduction of mortality is likely in the 30% range, meaning that S/C patients who receive leronlimab could still die. Even in the M2M population, with a larger trial, it’s unlikely that leronlimab could 100% percent reduce the progression of patients from moderate to S/C. Therefore, the drug is not an absolute solution, but part of an overall plan, in combination with vaccines and other therapeutics, to prevent the spread of, and treat active cases of, COVID19.

My response:
First, IMO, the % reduction is mortality should be 35% at lowest, 47% highest.
One good argument would be to support the idea that leronlimab is "the best" therapeutic. Another descent argument is to support the idea that there are some critical covid-19 patients, who have had so much organ damage, that yes, nothing can save them. Yet, we give them leronlimab, they die, and then we say leronlimab did not save them, and. their death makes leronlimab look less efficacious, and, our % reduction of deaths goes down, and, or p value gets worse. IMO, ideally, the extreme critically ill should not effect our % reduction of deaths and thus should not effect our p value and thus, should not effect the probability of obtaining a s/c EUA.